The annual U.S. Supreme Court review

We had our annual U.S. Supreme Court review. The high court’s recent session included a significant decision on Arizona election laws, along with rulings on cases ranging from free speech rights on social media to religious freedom in a time of the pandemic. Here to discuss those decisions and other aspects of the court, we welcome Paul Bender, from ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, and Stephen Montoya, an Attorney with Montoya, Lucero, and Pastor.

Topics:

• AZ voting rights:
  • Covers the bans on the so-called ballot-harvesting, along with out-of-precinct voting.
  • We went in-depth about how large of a decision this was for them.
• California v. Texas:
  • We covered how Obamacare was decided to be upheld and what the reasoning for this might have been.
  • Along with if this decision was a surprise.
• Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo:
  • New York was limiting the number of people allowed to attend their churches during the pandemic, while other places like malls, restaurants, and shops weren’t being limited to such extents.
  • It was decided that it was unconstitutional for New York to limit churches in this way.
• Fulton v. Philadelphia:
  • It was concluded that Catholic foster care programs are not required to place children in same-sex households.
• Mahoney School District v. B.L:
  • A student was disciplined for an online rant using inappropriate language after being passed over for a position on the cheerleading team. 
  • Although the student used inappropriate language, it was decided it was within her constitutional right, and the discipline violated her first amendment right.

Finally, we asked if there was still talk about the expansion of the Supreme Court and what their stance was on the subject. Montoya argued that the court should be expanded since it is a political organization, while Bender argued shouldn’t be extended since it would become a never ended process of expansion.